New Advances Bring Fusion Closer to Reality 785
An anonymous reader writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports on new advances in nuclear fusion research. For years we've been waiting for the technical breakthroughs that would make cost-effective fusion energy a reality. Are we getting close, or are the problems insurmountable?"
Re:Christian? (Score:1, Interesting)
Dumbed down (Score:2, Interesting)
"We still intend to use a donut-shaped plasma contained in a magnetic field. But now we've got better scopes and the latest release of 'budget fluid-model XP' for our souped-up research PCs"
Perhaps the real point of the article is to announce that Christian HQ has finally decided that nuclear fusion isn't blasphemous (and God has presumably decided not to enforce her patents on the sun).
Re:"Splitting atoms" (Score:1, Interesting)
since when does a fossil fuel power plant produce radioactive waste?
(and there are some fossil fuel power plants that can be relatively clean, such as natural gas. problem is, they're not anywhere near efficient enough, compared to coal/oil, but good for some uses)
We use the heat generated by the decay of radioactive elements to fuel our generators. We do nothing like smashing atoms into smaller bits.
Except that it's typically the controlled fission of a particular isotope of a particular atom, using a neutron source and a neutron absorbing material, we're forcing the atom to split by deliberately introducing an extra neutron that subsequently releases more neutrons.
This isn't natural decay by any standard, it's controlled fission. That said, the term "Atom smashing" is by no means correct, since it requires no 'force' to speak of, we're not talking Mr. Burns' atom smashing plant here
Decay is when an atom spontaneously breaks into two separate particles releasing alpha, beta or gamma radiation. It's also when the term 'half life' kicks in outside FPS's, and of course, it's only the waste from a fission reactor that has to undergo millions of years of decay to be safe.
Of course, it's been about 7 years since I studied this in physics, so perhaps they've changed to using reactors that sit around waiting for spontaneous decay to occur.
ashridah
Re:Cheap? Clean? when will we learn (Score:1, Interesting)
Also, due electromagnetic forces, the sudden absence of big magnetic field excerts a lot of torque to the torus. Not harming anyone, but I'd wager being near when 6-meter-high metal construction just "jumps" may be a bit startling.
Re:Years away (Score:5, Interesting)
This glib statement seriously underestimates the achievements in this area in the past few years. We have gone from doubts as to whether controlled fusion could ever be achieved to a point where we are working on stabilising the reaction to the level where it produces commercial results.
And by the way, the classic quote was '50' years, not 15!
Re:Cheap? Clean? when will we learn (Score:1, Interesting)
On the other hand, nuclear fusion merge two atom (hydrogen?) into one. Energy are input to accelerate the atoms as well as confining it. IF it does fail, the hydrogens will escape (from the chamber?) but there won't be further reaction. This won't lead to explosion in power failure.
They are cheaper than fission in the sense that hydrogen are easier to get than uranium. Furthermore, our current source would cease to exist one day and hydrogen are everywhere so they are a more common source of energy
Biodiesel is better fusion power (Score:3, Interesting)
Although we may end up with oxygen pollution
biodiesel home page [biodiesel.org]
Re:Cheap? Clean? when will we learn (Score:5, Interesting)
The reaction stops. No, seriously, current fusion reactor designs require the magentic field to cause the fusion to happen. Thats why its currently so expensive, most of the time it takes more electricity to power the magnet than you can get from the fusion.
Current nuclear reactors have a GREAT track record, by any other industry standard. However, those who worked on the years of clean up at three mile island
Guess what, the reactor there wasn't a current design. In fact, I believe none of the reactors in operation in the US is a current design, since instead of replacing them with better designs that have been in use for almost a decade now, little "know it alls" like you complain and prevent new plants from being built to replace the old.
The situation with nuclear power has not changed just becuase we are looking at 'new and improved' fusion.
The situation with nuclear power changed decades ago with the invention of reactors that could burn fuel that would have otherwise been considered "spent", reducing the need for disposal. It changed years ago with the invention of better fission reactors that are resistant to meltdown in emergency situations, and it will change yet again with the invention of fusion reactors that operate by converting small atoms (Helium) into slightly larger ones, rather than using heavy metals like uranium and plutonium.
Re:Cheap? Clean? when will we learn (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Typical slashbot (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Splitting atoms" (Score:2, Interesting)
Even so, I deeply question the need for additional nuclear power as the solution to our ills when I know that the products are both toxic and radioactive for at least thousands of years, when the load of radioactive materials in the atmosphere and the rest of the environment continues to rise, and when we have no permanent storage solution. By contrast, at least fossil fuel products are largely recycled in the natural environment, and what radioactivity they introduce isn't much different from what is already there naturally (compare: radioactive cesium and iodine).
By going nuclear we will solve our present energy problems by foisting new ones on the next generation, and for a great many after that. This is a decision that must be made cautiously, if it is acceptable at all. What's more, there are obvious alternatives, such as wind, solar, and simply conservation. Yes, they cost more money. Yes, they would mean many societal changes to accomodate. Yes, we might not be economically as competitive with countries that don't care about being messy (but recall the costs of having a contaminated environment). Yes, we can't solve some problems with them (e.g., flying commercial planes with solar isn't an option!). But is cheap and messy nuclear really the right choice to make if we care about the future, and not merely ourselves?
This view has nothing to do with superstitions and ignorance. Just the opposite.
I'm not kneejerk opposed to nuclear power. I think it *might* be a viable option. But I think it should be approached very, very, very carefully, and not with the attitude of "build more plants, otherwise business as usual". This is the opportunity to weigh *all* of the options. Even nuclear power has its limits in terms of non-renewable resources, so we're going to be facing the same sort of problems eventually in the slightly more distant future. I think it would be one of the greatest technical achievements of this generation if we manage to solve the problem more permanently rather than passing it on a generation or two.
Re:"Splitting atoms" (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Biodiesel is better fusion power (Score:4, Interesting)
UK duty on ordinary diesel 47.1 p/litre
duty on biodiesel 27.1 p/litre
duty on ordinary diesel paid by farmers 5.22 p/litre
Re:Years away (Score:2, Interesting)
No, not all life. There are some life forms in the deap sea which are powered by vulcanic power. [amnh.org] Indeed some researchers think that life could have originated there.
Re:"Splitting atoms" (Score:4, Interesting)
there are no satisfying solutions on how to deal with that waste IMO/AFAIK.
Put it in torpedos that bury themselves in the edge of the deepest part of the Marianas Trench. The trench is the meeting point of the Pacific and Phillipine tectonic plates, and subduction would pull the waste under the Pacific plate and into the mantle.
Actually, various forms of deep ocean disposal, whether at plate edges or, perhaps better, in the center of geologically inert areas, are an excellent option. Wastes buried a few meters deep in the soft, inert and lifeless sediments in the deeps would ensure that the waste will not migrate into the biosphere before it decays to a safe level and would make recovery by anyone nearly impossible, which means that the wastes would be safe from terrorists wanting to make dirty bombs.
The only obstacle, really, is an international treaty, the London Convention, which is just an agreement and could be modified through an appropriate political process.
Re:The problems aren't insurmountable (Score:5, Interesting)
I refer you to "Exploration of Space by Means of Reactive Apparatus" by Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky, written in 1896. That was 108 years ago...
Coal plants do release more radioactivity. (Score:4, Interesting)
For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year; the equivalent dose for coal use, from mining to power plant operation to waste disposal, is not listed in this report and is probably unknown.
For a large number of coal samples, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average values of uranium and thorium content have been determined to be 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively
And a 1,000 megawatt plant uses 4 million tons of coal a year, resulting in the release of 5.2 tons of Uranium and 12.8 tones of thorium.
A 1000 megawatt light water nuclear plant of the type used in the USA uses about 25 tons of uranium a year.
If you're willing to use breeder reactors and their ilk, you can actually get more power out the the uranium in the ash than you got burning the coal!
Re:Years away (Score:5, Interesting)